Communicating, connecting and influencing in the Conversation Age

What's amazing is how one agency can continue tripping over itself. After suffering through Katrina, FEMA looked like it had finally come up with a solution during the recent California wildfire crisis for bad media coverage: stage a fake press conference. It goes like this: plant the "reporters" (FEMA employees) to ask softball questions and let the FEMA official, No. 2 man Harvey Johnson, appear to be in control ( "Are you happy with FEMA's response so far"? Harvey: Yes, very happy. Next question..") Real reporters were only given 15 minutes notice to call into the press conference, and then had to sit on the phone and listen--no questions allowed in the FEMA press conference model. This helps keep things rolling along a lot more smoothly.

We'll see if this model catches on anywhere else, maybe even corporate America. Imagine when Steve Jobs hears about it--no more whiny reporters to deal with (or maybe we could have the Fake Steve Jobs hold a fake Apple press conference and see where it goes).

Meantime, Federal Emergency Management Agency chief David Paulison is ripping his own agency for the debacle and No. 2 man Johnson is complaining that he knew nothing about it (wait--how did he know that "reporter" to call on by name?).

Where's "Brownie" when we need him?

And here's the latest kicker: FEMA held another press conference featuring Michael Chertoff, head of Homeland Security, but-- get this--they only invited a select number of reporters and only one TV news crew (AP), according to CNN (check this video out).

Oh, and the guy responsible for it all, Pat Philbin, won't be getting a new job as director of public affairs for the head of national intelligence. We'll see if he holds a press conference to announce his next move.

Nice analysis of Bush's state of the union speech recently by a former Clinton speechwriter (Vinca LaFleur), picked up in Ian Griffin's blog. I agree with most of her critique--that the speech lacked the Grand Ideas, it didn't flow well, and lacked passion. Looked at from a slightly different angle, something else is clear: Bush is not connecting with his audience. He's lost his groove. He's talking to an audience that may have existed right after 9/11, but the world has changed. Now people are weary of the daily visuals of bomb victims, torn families and destroyed lives--yes, the ghosts of Viet Nam.

More on the Intel layoffs--Oregonian article -- this time the middle aged managers struggling to adjust in the post Intel "real world." These three graphs jumped out at me:

"...Some of the newly unemployed are bitter. A few are angry.
Nearly all express sadness at losing not just their jobs but
also a community of colleagues who provided support and
inspiration.

For them, leaving Intel is about more than just being out of
work. Their divorce from the company's hard-charging,
insular culture leaves some feeling alone and adrift.

And yet many say the traits they cultivated at Intel --
discipline, drive and adaptability -- help them adjust to
life after Intel and plot new careers...."

Clearly it's the ones who can channel those corporate skills into new areas and/or new jobs who will live to see another day. Not easy, but then again, no one said life at Intel (or corporate america) would be a piece of cake.

Great story in Forbes on the improving lot of Americans now vs 1967. Clearly things have improved if you look at the median family as this country surpasses the 300 million pop. mark.

" Mr. and Mrs. Median's $46,326 in annual income is 32% more than their
mid-'60s counterparts, even when adjusted for inflation, and 13% more
than those at the median in the economic boom year of 1985. And thanks
to ballooning real estate values, average household net worth has
increased even faster. The typical American household has a net worth
of $465,970, up 83% from 1965, 60% from 1985 and 35% from 1995.
"

Tom makes a good case for how Google can pay a stunning $1.6 billion for YouTube, a service that many (mostly over 30) are still trying to figure out. Isn't this just a few million kids with cameras, goofy ideas, and a lot of time on their hands?

Turns out it's a lot more than that, and I agree with him, that GOOGLE is a great position to monetize YouTube and capture a rising tide of interest in this area. This, at a time that the whole media landscape is shifting away from broadcast and other old media to the Internet. A fascinating figure he got from a consultant is that "it costs about $1 per minute to deliver TV content to a
viewer as compared with 5 cents per minute via a service such as
YouTube." That 20 to 1 gap explains better than anything why old media is scrambling to position for the new era.

What will be interesting is to see how the Web 2.0 and all the new services will impact and possibly reform everything we know. Business. Education. Politics. Entertainment. Religion. It's all on the table now (quick quiz--remember when you had to truck down to the "record store" to buy a CD...our kids and grandkids will be fascinated in this historical tidbit).

Better hurry. The Google and YouTube guys aren't waiting around to see how this plays out.

Seems that most groups at Intel finished their layoffs over the last week (recall that the company is laying off 10,500 people). This time it seemed to take a heavy toll on managers. Many had 10 to 15 years or more experience (one had 23). Those who made the cut are finding their departments sometimes cut in half. That means more work for everyone, but who's complaining?

It reminded me of a good article that ran in Fortune magazine in 05 about the millions of managers getting the ax at middle age. Front cover had a grey haired, 50ish guy with a briefcase, all suited up, and heading out the door. Title: 50 and Fired stuck in my brain.

In the article, a consultant estimates that 3.5 million people between the ages of 40 and 58 vanished from the
American workforce from 2001 to 2004. That's about 5% of all
baby-boomers. Of course, they're not unemployed, they're "in transition."

The much awaited 60 Minutes show aired Sunday, with two separate segments on former HP (nonexecutive) chairman Patricia Dunn and former CEO Carly Fiorina. Both had been pushed out of the company in different ways--Fiorina for apparently failing to pull the company and its stock out of the mud despite an expensive, divisive battle over the Compaq merger; Dunn for her role spearheading a board investigation that spun out of control, and now has her under indictment under state charges. Both came out swinging at their board opponents.

From a media perspective, the two came across with different styles. Carly, whose book hits the shelves this week, said she was "hurt" when the board expectantly fired her. She declared that her strategy was on target, and rejected claims that she came up short in any areas, including day to day operations (oh, missing the earning projections by 20 plus percent was bad but hardly a fatal sin...even though it lost her credibility on Wall Street). The divisive battle with the HP founders' family, the flashy Carly commercials in front of the legendary founders' garage, the battles with the board--none were Carly's fault.Carly on 60 Minutes

Remember the old commercial, where the guy asks, "is it live or is it Memorex?" TV viewers couldn't tell because the commercial created the illusion
that viewers were listening to the sound of a live instrument when they
were really listening to a recording. Now years later we have the "slimming camera" from HP that can instantly take pounds off (a special setting does the trick).

Check it out at Seth's blog or go directly to the HP camera page These type of devices are very convenient for the ultra-image conscious (just ask Katy Couric), who was put on a Photoshop diet by CBS recently. The result: a younger, slimmer, zestier news anchor.

But this spotlights an interest trend and question: can you really believe anything you see anymore? Reality has taken a back seat for years to illusion and distortion. You can blame the corporate hype and marketing/media machine, slick advertisers and Madison Avenue, the media, technology, etc--but it doesn't matter. The bottom line is illusion now rules.
Of course companies have been creating images for years and getting away with it. When I worked at Intel (and was loosely part of the Intel Inside program) we managed to convince the world that there was something unique and magical about our processor, that "Intel Inside" equated to a technology marvel and safety for the consumer.

Most of these brands/images are deeply embedded in our brains.

Quick, what do you think about when you hear:

* Apple
* Google
* Starbucks
* Southwest Airlines
* HP

Ok, maybe HP's not a great example now..Ironically, bloggers are jumping on the slimming camera the same day
the state of California announced it was filing charges against several
key players in the never-ending HP pretexting soap opera, including
chairwoman Patricia Dunn, who recently stepped down under fire. No
slimming camera will help her or HP's once squeeky clean, above it all image. Other examples:

The recent news of Intel laying off 10,500 employees brought back some memories for me, not many of them good. I was laid off at Intel five years ago, just a few weeks before 9/11. (what a year). Just two years earlier I was a national media spokesman for Intel generating tons of publicity for the company through radio and tv appearances, public workshops in dozens of cities, a book and newspaper column. Intel's PC Dads program

Now I was out on the street. So much for job security.

Five years later, looking back, it turned out to be a huge learning experience. After a rough start, it forced me to become more independent, learn new skills, make new contacts, open up new opportunities and so on. But don't let the self help pied pipers fool you; none of this is easy.

Several former Intel colleagues asked what I'd do differently if I were leaving the corporate world today and starting my own business. There's a lot, but for starters: